Answers

The Catholic Church is not a "denomination". A denomination by definition is a body that has broken its ties with a pre-existing body. "De nomina" is Latin for "out of the name" or "away from the name". Denominations didn't exist until the 16th century. The Holy Catholic Church has existed since Jesus Christ founded it in the 1st Century.

You are correct on one point however. Christ's Church as such will cease to exist when Christ comes at the end of time. The purpose of the Church is to guide all men to salvation. That work will be finished at the Second Coming of Christ; therefore the Church Christ founded for that purpose will no longer be needed. That's why Christ, after founding the Catholic Church, promised to be with it "until the end of time".

There is no foreseeable end for the catholic Church; even
after the Parousia. The Bible says she is Jesus
Christ's Bride; spotless and without wrinkle in the
kingdom to come. He will greet her and all His saints
with her at that time; into His everlasting kingdom
where she is to reign with Him as the Church Triumphant.
Already there is a great mass of the saints in
heaven. When THEY have ended their existence, we
might expect hers. But they're in life everlasting, so
she has no end.

Fereerra, the fac that you don even LISTEN to what the Churhc of
hcurts claims means you are ikn no posiiton to condmen it, or cliam
tis Protestnat.

This is what i find torubling. Many here bemoan others for not
learnign what Cahtlics beleive and why, then they do the same.

It is hypocracu. You sya the churhc of chits is a Protestant
denominaiton, if I say otherwise, Im simpely worng because it MUST be
to fit your world veiw.

But cant soemone couner than the Cahtolci chruhc is a flase
schismatic chruhc, foudned by rmes gred for power? This is what the
Orthodox chruhces claim.

Indeed, I could have just read chikc tractas and condmened the
Cahtolci chruhc myself, instad I cam ehere and elarend what Cahtolcis
beelive and why.

this was rewarded by you and others liek you disregaridng wiht others
beelive.

why shodil anyone repsect Cahtolci beelifs, or listen to what
Cahtolcis have to say, or learn why cahtolcis beelive what they
beleive, when Cahtolcis refuse the same couresey form others?
OKm the hcurhc of HCirts is a Protestant denominaiton, an the
Cahtolic chuhc is fileld with schismartic heretics form eastern
orthodoxy.

I'll tell you John..I sure wish I could still be alive the day that
Christ returns in all of His glory..can you just IMAGINE what a
sight to behold for all of the humans still living?? My goodness.

I like to think about that every morning when I open my eyes.it
keeps me on my toes, so to speak. Reminds me to be NICE to other
people, to try to have tons of charity..to behave as if Christ were
going to be HERE today..wow. awesome thought, eh?

Eugene, you are absolutely correct, and this is well attested in the
imagery of Revelation 21.

Paul M said that Christ's Church as such will cease to exist
and Christ, after founding the Catholic Church, promised to be
with it "until the end of time".

Yes, it "will cease to exist" as a visible entity on current Planet
Earth, but it will not cease to exist altogether.

Paul needs to avoid misinterpreting the word "until" (in "until the
end of time") as indicating something about after the end of
time. He appears to be making the same mistake that most
Protestants make when they misinterpret Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew not
his wife until she had borne a son), since the "until" in that
verse was not intended to say anything about what happened afterwards.

In fact, every man and woman in heaven will be Catholic at the end of
the world (i.e., because they will know that all Catholic teachings
were true). For example, if Gandhi's soul is now in heaven, it is
the soul of a Catholic.

Yet again, Zarove sticks his oppressive, arrogant, and simply WRONG
Protestant nose into a conversation. We couldn't care less whether
he or an Eastern Orthodox person considers Catholicism to be
a "denomination," because Catholicism existed before Eastern
Orthodoxy (which broke away from it), and because Catholicism existed
before the "church of Christ," which was founded by a few guys that
chose not to become Catholics when they left other Prot denominations.

I just said that Catholicism existed before Eastern Orthodoxy
(which broke away from it). Lest I be misunderstood, I should
say that some of the "local churches" (dioceses) of today's "Eastern
Orthodoxy" are ancient and were part of the 1st-Century Catholic
Church. But there was originally no aggregation of autonomous local
or national churches known as "Eastern Orthodoxy."

tHWE VERY FAC TTHAT iM A PROTESTANT, RATHER i WANT TO BE OR NOT,
PROVES iM RIGHT.

AGAIN, THE cHURHC OF CHRIST DOESNT CLAIM TO BE PROTESTNAT, BUT is
PROTESTNAST BECAUSE YO HAV DECLARED IT TO BE TRUE.

whats the difference between syaign thta and sayign Catolisism is
a buinch of Heretics that boike away form tEastern Orthodoxy?

You ARE NOT willign to listen or be fair.

So Im right.

Since that was the point.

You will repeat that i am protestant, and if I say otheriwse tyou
will pou hatred and bvenhom on me repeating this claim over and over
again. No need to listen to why Im not protestnat, sine Im nto
catolci i must be.

and then you demand I listen to you.

why shuld I listen to a closed minded bigot liek you?

We couldn't care less whether he or an Eastern Orthodox person
considers Catholicism to be a "denomination," because Catholicism
existed before Eastern Orthodoxy

Not accordign to eastern Orthodoxy. Thats the point.

If I where liek you, I woidln be wllign to listen tot he cahtolci
posiiton and coidl just as easly just read cikc Tracts and proclaim i
the whore or revelation.

The fact that i came here ot learn about Cahtolisism shows my own
open midnedness.

asopposed to your cliams, I bever attacked Catholsism.

However, you attakc me relentlessy and then demand respect.

You ar eno different from johnwho posted this thread. You are right,
and no one elses veiws even need to be heard, and as a reuslt you are
allowed to bull them into submission.

Thatis arrogance.

(which broke away from it),

Accrodign to Orthodoxy, you broike form them. why shoidl I beleive
you over them? Indeed, if I jut up and decide not to listen to you,
then why woudl it matter?

Your just a heretic followgn a heretic patriarch who tried to userp
completecontrole.

And yo cant say this is mere fancy, as its a very Ancien claim.

and because Catholicism existed before the "church of Christ,"

AT leats in yoyr narorw minded and bigoted version of hisotry.
again, since tyou ar eunwillign to listen to anyone else, you have
losy the ability to demand others listen toy uo. sicne you have no
repsect for others, ou cannot expect respect for yor own Veiws.

Which is the point you missed about my post.

which was founded by a few guys that chose not to become Catholics
when they left other Prot denominations.

SEE, your doign it again! By insisting the Churhc of CHrist is a
Proptestant denominaiton and usign every excuse possible to say this
endlessly, you prove how narorw midned and uneducated you are, and
how much a bully. You WANT to hurt and offend me. You dotn CARE abotu
facts.

You lei when you say you want m to convert to Cahtolsiism. because
lets face it , no act of hatred has caused a converison yet.

You are loathesome and commit the sins of slander and utrage,
and yet you take communion!

Just as you don beleive in Loivng others, and carign for them. Just
in enforcign your own ways and veiws.

In your first post you called me arrogant, then dispaly endless
arrogance.

And in yoyr firs ppst you said I was worng,then focused ont eh
cliam i was makign, and misisng he point.

I wasnt wrong, you ARE NOT wllign to listen to the facts, or other
poell ews. You ar eonly willign to hurl insylts and try to force
others who dont agree iwh yor narow vew of Cahtolsiism off the board.

Take off your blinders man--you're tricking yourself if you believe
that Catholicism isn't as much a part of the splinter of the church
during the great schism. The Eastern Orthodox church believes it is
the original and that you broke away.

Division has been occuring since the time of Paul--and the apostolic
church has been preserved in the Word of God--only!

People who are born-again by this Word--are thr true church of Jesus
Christ. We are His Body of believers....universal and living...

Anon, you haven't been ''born
again'' unless you received baptism. You've since
embraced false doctrines; the very one Paul anathemises
in Gal, 1. You live in heresy this moment.

What's
more, you worship at the Bible's feet; as if it were
your idol. You call on your IDOL here, hoping to
overturn somehow the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Thank
God she has been founded on Rock; and your feeble
bible-scholarship is carried away on sand. Adios!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The Eastern Orthodox church believes it is the original and that you broke away."

A: As soon as they produce a 2nd century document of the Orthodox Church, I'll listen. Or a 4th Century document. Or even an 8th Century document. I won't even demand a document produced BY the Orthodox Church. Just one that MENTIONS the Orthodox Church will do. There are abundant documents from all of those centuries both produced BY the Holy Catholic Church and by other sources, ABOUT the Holy Catholic Church. The historical evidence speaks for itself.

>Division has been occuring since the time of Paul--and the apostolic church has been preserved in the Word of God--only!

A: Bodies of people have been defecting from the one true Church since Apostolic times. But the Church from which they defected remains unified in one faith, one baptism, one set of universal beliefs. When people defect, they create division among themselves, for unity can be found only in the true Church Christ founded for all men, the one He guaranteed would teach all truth. tha Apostolic Church has indeed been preserved in the Word of God, courageously defended, infallibly interpreted, and universally proclaimed throughout the world and throughout the ages by His own true Church. Obviously the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism cannot represent the Word of God, for the Word of God cannot contradict itself. But the unauthoritative interpretations of men certainly can, and have done so since men first attempted to interpret the Word for themselves.

You lack historical perspective. The unbroken succession of Popes from John Paul II back to Simon Peter is well documented. The Holy Catholic Church is described by that name in documents dating to the beginning of the 2nd Century, written by early bishops of that same Church, who had known and were ordained by the Apostles themselves. To know history is to be Catholic, for knowledge of history will prevent any person from choosing in good faith to belong to any lesser Church.

WE DO NOT FOLLOW A ROMAN CHURCH. how many times does this silly
error need to be corrected. there is no roman church, there isnt
even a roman catholic church. we are the CATHOLIC CHURCH of the
roman rite, just as we are united with the byzantine rite, and many
more.

Zarove, intoductory theology clearly teaches that christianity is
divided into two groups: catholic and protestant. by ACADEMIC
definition the church of Christ IS protestant.

second, there are those of us who have attended protestant
churches... who know quite well the various doctrines promulgated in
their various organizations. dont forget, some of us have read
through countless thousands of posts which laboriously spell out
again and again many of these various viewpoints. i may not, say,
have much information on the mormon church, which is why i dont
comment on them often... but in RE to the idea of sola scriptura or
sola fida i would say i've been educated QUITE thouroughly. even as
such, most of us try to understand the doctrinal differences between
many protestant groups and make clear that what we refer to is a
common belief and not a norm accross the spectrum of protestantism.
and then you come back with this, claiming all catholics to be
entirely ignorant and vicious. i'm rather disappointed zarove, to
hear this viewpoint coming from you, when you have decried such
improper grouping of people so many times in the past.

Puasl H, dont be too dissapoitned. My point wasnt to relaly rign up
these views, but rather to actually get Oaul M to recignise the
problem with autocratic declarations, and his constant allowanc eof
perosnal degretadion to continue.

I have been followed to almost all threads and persoally attacked
by "Opinion' AKA "typist"/ He does nothgin btu attakc me and doesn
tlisten to other veiws at all.

This was the min point I was making.

Also, its nto quiet that clear cut. In my own theology classes, its
not "Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant" in division.

Not everythign thats nto eastern orthodox and not catholic is
automaticlaly Protestant. Thats just a conveneint limitation, btu
doesnt do justice.

I mean, rellay, what do hou think the Churhc of Hcirts beelifs thats
similar to protestant hteology?

and let snto rpetend Protestant heology sit similar across the
board, the doctorinal chaos isnt as broad either as it is presented.

The main poiut though is that others need to be offered the
benefit of a doyubt and lsiteneed to if they arent hostile, if you do
not offer this, then others will nto offer it to you.

so forget my actual words abotu orthodoxy, and try to see the poitn
in light of the other threads, such as the "Do Dogs to Heaven"
thread where I defend my chareter agaisnt assasination, or where I do
the same in "Olde english bibles".

That sort of attitue, not the views, are the real meat of the
issue.

I am simpley tired of beign attacked and redressed by narrow minded
fools who presumetoo much.

Again aul H, the poin is less to attack Cathlcis in general, btu to
motivate Paul M into preventing the further charecter assasination.
which he has allowed thusfar.

it has corrupted 7 threads now, to date, and I have poetitioned
tat it coem to an end as I do not deserve such attacks. since it has
been allowed to persist, U must take measures to prevent beign
attacked.

This is not againt Cahtolsiism, but agaisnt the current situation
on this spacific baord.

i understand your frustration, zarove. you generally stick to the
rules almost all of the times and are indeed a cherished and
courteous guest in this forum. as such, perhaps, i have tried to
always treat your view with respect. however, we all disagree.
when i am disagreed with my character and age are called into
question as quickly as your character and non-catholicism are.
ultimately, zarove, your presense is appreciated here because you do
have valid contributions to this forum. as i said in another
thread, i hardly consider you a non-catholic at all.

in regards to the church of Christ, i dont know much about them. i
do know that protestant beliefs are all over the register, so i try
to qualify my statements in that regard. these qualifications,
zarove, are because of polite guests like you and dave. i dont do
them for your run of the mill anti catholic militants who come
here. it was simply shocking to hear your words of anger is all. i
know and understand why you responded as you did, but i thought i
would point out this sentiment to you in case you did not understand
what exactly it was you were saying to all of us here.

I appriciate the support, I just hoe that most realsie I am not
addresing "everyone here' and merley tryign to open up the eyes of
the Moderator agaisnt the unnessisary aggresion he has allowed to run
upon his baord.

Again, tis sint abtu rather or not the Churhc of CHrts is
Protestnat, this thread ought never have even mentined the churhc of
christ. It was broguht up for the sole purpose of hurting me.

Its nto rather or not Catholic Chruhc is a Denominaiton. However,
oaul M's answswer was autocratic and not very recptice of othes
views. Thsi is a fualt he dispalys which becomes tiresome while he
allows the attakcs to flourish, largley because he agrees withhte
sentements of the attackers on amters of theology or definiiton, whle
ignorign their attacks on eprsons.

My statements are less agaisnt The Cahtolci Chruch which I stil veiw
as a Christain body, neithe do i diliberalrtey seek to defend my
statements aive, but I do insist on beign treated fairly.

Oliver has now left the forum due tot he sam attakcs, and oter
siwll follow suit. I find this situatin intolerable, and must take
some action, for no aciton will man this baord iwll n longer truely
represent Catholicism, or any Christain virtue, btu will become a den
of vipers ready to stirke.

Allowanc eof persoanl insult and attakc by a handful will send
the righeous posters away, leaivng only the acumulation of offenders.

This I try to eliveate.

I merley point out that, dependant on perspective, the Catolci Chruch
cna be seen as a Denomination, in the same way as the HCuhc of Hcrst
is a Protestant deominaiton. As offensive as this is to Cahtolcis to
hear, it si eqelly offencive for the HCuhc of Hcirst mmbers be called
a Protestant denominaiton. There is no need to insult the mmbers of
the Hurhc of Hcrst who do nt wishto be part of Potestantism, so why
insult them? whats worse, the expectaito fo respect for the Cahtolci
Chruch and how ti is to be seperated, not a enominaiton, whereas the
Hcurhc fo Hcrst ust be rather it wants ot be or not is itself
offnesive.

so why ISNT the Cahtolci chruc just another denominaiton? Or is not
the wiser coruse to not offend and to udnersand peopels veiws?

Offending is oen thing, going out of your wya to offend quiet
another.

especally in light of the unnessisary attention I have been
givenin the last few weeks, for the osle end of eliminatign my
participation on this baord.

Yes. Please do "leave the forum." You used an ironic turn of
phrase, "leave the forum for goo," because it would be "for good"
(everyone's good) if you left.

You are wrong to characterize what is happening as "attacks."
Instead, you are being corrected. But, in your paranoia, you
perceive any correction as an "attack."

There is a way, Zarove, for you to stay here indefinitely without
being corrected ("attacked," according to your vocabulary). The way
for you to stay indefinitely (and unscathed) is for you (1) to stop
posting things that contradict Catholicism in even the slightest way
and (2) to stop posting messages that promote stuff that is
associated with Protestantism (e.g., the KJV). Just stay away from
those controversial and insulting kinds of thing, and I for one will
not give you any trouble. Try it, and you'll see. Refuse to try it,
and you'll see the opposite.

Yes. Please do "leave the forum." You used an ironic turn of
phrase, "leave the forum for goo," because it would be "for good"
(everyone's good) if you left.

THIS, Paul H, is why i am in a mood of late. trash tlak lik this is
permitted agsint me, while I do nohting.

You are wrong to characterize what is happening as "attacks."
Instead, you are being corrected. But, in your paranoia, you perceive
any correction as an "attack."

Being corrected invovles presenting evidnece, nto syaign Im wrong and
gorcign your veiws, or repeatign charges. beign corrected also doesnt
entail beign attakce don a eprsonal level. such as yor past attakcs
on my level of intellegence, or your former attakcs on my suposed
anti-Cahtolsiism of which you show no real examples.

You arent correcitgn me, yor attackign me.

that is evident, and not paranoia.

There is a way, Zarove, for you to stay here indefinitely without
being corrected ("attacked," according to your vocabulary). The way
for you to stay indefinitely (and unscathed) is for you (1) to stop
posting things that contradict Catholicism in even the slightest way
and (2) to stop posting messages that promote stuff that is
associated with Protestantism (e.g., the KJV).

I do nto acitlaly post things that are incompatable with Cahtolisism.
I merley post things that you disagree with, btu on this baord I
contian them entirley within the realm of the Magerstum and its
teachings.

as for the KJV, I only bign it up when its attakced.

Just stay away from those controversial and insulting kinds of
thing, and I for one will not give you any trouble.

In other words, when yo feel liek trashignt he KJV, you shodik eb
able to, and I shoudl be silent. when you proclaim the Hcurh teaches
animals lack immortal souls and claim they lakc all aility to reon
and have no fre will, I must agree wince "The CHurhc has spoiken",
even if you cnanot prodice one Chuhc document that makes this claim.

I dot make contraversial and anti-Cahtolci remarks. What I do make
are remarks that arnet popular on occasison, btu that are well within
Catholic chruhc teachings.

Your commens asside, you relaly cannot shwo where I have said
anytig agaisnt Cahtolsisim, save the aboive which served only as
illustration.

and now your merely tryign to bully me nto slence so you can walk
all over me.

No dice.

You can pretend disagreeing with you is anti-Cahtlci all you want,
but tis jist an attmept to win contorle over another.

Try it, and you'll see. Refuse to try it, and you'll see the
opposite.

why dotn you try not seeign attacks agaisnt the Catholic faith where
none exist, and try not Presupposign that agrement wiht you is
agreement withthe Catholci churhc on issues that the HCufrhc has no
terachigns on, and start liivng byt ge teachigns of the hcurhc and
not attakign peple, pretendign o correct them.

That is a BALD-FACED LIE. If it were true, I would not have
mentioned the KJV above. Numerous are the times when the Bible (in
general) was being discussed, without the KJV being mentioned, and
you interjected your pro-KJV propaganda. And you have even
started threads that push the KJV and insult Catholics. How
did you insult? You know that Catholics understand the
word "apocrypha" to mean one thing, but you VILELY insist on using
that word (with its negative connotations) to refer to what Catholic
believe to be seven divinely inspired books. This is an example of your sin.

In other words, when yo feel liek trashignt he KJV, you shodik eb
able to, and I shoudl be silent.

Another stupidity! I never "feel like trashing the KJV." I don't
want to talk about it at all. I only mention it when YOU bring it
up, and when I do mention it, I speak the truth about it (which is
not "trashing" it). Stop mentioning the KJV, and you won't see
anyone here talking about it. We'd rather talk about Catholic Bible
versions.

when you proclaim the Hcurh teaches animals lack immortal souls
and claim they lakc all aility to reon and have no fre will, I must
agree since "The CHurhc has spoiken", even if you cnanot prodice one
Chuhc document that makes this claim.

I never said that you have to "agree." Instead, you need to learn to
do two things: (a) don't ever again haughtily try to tell Catholics
what their Church teaches about something, and (b) express your
contrary point of view and then move on without going into incessant,
boring, almost-impossible-to-read tirades.

So I say again: "Try it, and you'll see. Refuse to try it, and you'll
see the opposite."

as for the KJV, I only bign it up when its attakced That is a BALD-FACED LIE. If it were true, I would not have
mentioned the KJV above. Numerous are the times when the Bible (in
general) was being discussed, without the KJV being mentioned, and
you interjected your pro-KJV propaganda. And you have even started
threads that push the KJV and insult Catholics. How did you insult?
You know that Catholics understand the word "apocrypha" to mean one
thing, but you VILELY insist on using that word (with its negative
connotations) to refer to what Catholic believe to be seven divinely
inspired books. This is an example of your sin.

That thread was to celebrate my new purchase. znd as I explaiend
calmly in the last thread where you made stupid attacks ove rmy
prefered Bible, the term "apocrypha" is accurate when disucsisng
prodicts that call it Apocrypha.

Its nto vile, its just that lookign on amazon for a "King James with
deuterocannon' won't work. Its listed as apocrypha.

and I didnt exaclty Push the KJv, and the thread sint propoganda. I
merley was happy I got a Bible with the Apocrypha.

Normally though I use the term "Cntsted Books" or while
here "deuterocannon." I just dot use the term in conjunction tot he
KJV.

so you overreact.

and find offence where none is intended.

In other words, when yo feel liek trashignt he KJV, you shodik eb
able to, and I shoudl be silent.

Another stupidity! I never "feel like trashing the KJV." I don't
want to talk about it at all. I only mention it when YOU bring it up,
and when I do mention it, I speak the truth about it (which is
not "trashing" it). Stop mentioning the KJV, and you won't see anyone
here talking about it. We'd rather talk about Catholic Bible
versions.

You are the one that brought it up on this thread, therefore proving
that you lied.

And, last time I broguth it up was when I mentioend it wa the
Bible I used. It was unnessisasy for anyoen to comment on this, but
when the firts comment was made it snowballed into an unnessisary
fight, with you accusing me of trasign Catholci Bibles, which I didn
een mention.

But as I said, you want me to not have free speech, even when its
nto offnesive.

when I post sciroture, its nromally form the Authorised verison. You
widl hve me not use this, btu rellay havent any reaosn why I ought to
not use it, other than you dont liek it.

its just a Bible transaltion, get a grip!

when you proclaim the Hcurh teaches animals lack immortal souls
and claim they lakc all aility to reon and have no fre will, I must
agree since "The CHurhc has spoiken", even if you cnanot prodice one
Chuhc document that makes this claim.

I never said that you have to "agree." Instead, you need to learn
to do two things:

On the contrafry, yo say "Agree or be silent", which is a form of
intmidation.

(a) don't ever again haughtily try to tell Catholics what their
Church teaches about something, and

Is it rellay less haiughtly than a Cahtolci proclaimign as fact that
their chruhc plainly teaches soemthing, when they cannot prodice a
single shred of documentaiton?

This again refers, in truth, tot he animal claoms. Men liek Paul M
and steve say animals lakc immortal souls. I have no right sayign th
Cahtlci chruhc never taught this. Yet, truth be told, they have yet
to present any documentation, and I am expected to ascent to this as
the Catholci Churhces posiiton, dispite lack of evidence, which I
repeatedly asked for.

I was not beign haighty, but I did grow weiry of their cliams
that they didnt support with any evidence.

And you are beign haighty when you make an absurd demand.

Unelss you can show where I plainly violated the forum rules, you
shoidlnt try to limit my freedom while here.

(b) express your contrary point of view and then move on without
going into incessant, boring, almost-impossible-to-read tirades.

You mean liek you?

what you meran is I shudl express my vies, and when others leap in
and say Im wrong, and jump all over me, I shidl bow my head and walk
away, and let this stand. after all, its me "Acceptign corrction."

Im sorry you think tis haighty to point out the fact that
proclamatiosn about what the churhc dos and dosnt rteahc doesnt make
it a facxt, and Im sorry you dont liek he fact that I fight back when
you make your blatant insultign and inceniary complaints agaisnt me,
but you have not relaly done muhc to support your clams agaisnt me,
and made further pesonal atacks on my charecter.

I am not liable for your anger, nor dod I provoke it, what proviked
it instead was your unwillignness to have your veiws challnged, even
within the ocntext of the Chruch itsself.

So I say again: "Try it, and you'll see. Refuse to try it, and
you'll see the opposite."

why do you try bing offended less when peopoel disagree and actlaly
defend their veiws, and actually try not to orce them to slence to
let yourt own presumptions reign supreme.

rrelaly this is abotu silencing posiiton t your views, not about
preserving Cahtolisism form atacks that do not exist.

You eman lik you beign a pan in the tail because Im not catholci and
I don agree with you on some issues? Or when you pretend the Catholci
Chruch teaches soemthing, when in fact it doesnt? Or the fact that
when you want to spread your opinion as fACT and are challenged you
don want me to interfere with pointing out that you lakc ecvidence?